King Kong

Directed by: Peter Jackson
3 stars
::spoiler alert::

Let it be known right now that I have a special affinity for King Kong. After all, according to my baby book, it was the first movie I ever saw. I like to think that we saw it in the drive-in, no less, but it’s hard verifying that.
Onto this version:
Ok, so the visual effects were stunning, yes, it’s a Peter Jackson movie … & you can TELL it’s a Peter Jackson movie.
Ok, so the acting was pretty good - Jack Black’s schtick is getting really old, though - Naomi Watts, it occurred to me about halfway into it (you know, the time most movies are wrapping up), acted primarily without words.
But parts dragged on. Ok, we get it; the island is TREACHEROUS. It’s SCARY. It’s UNLIKE ANYTHING YOU’VE EVER SEEN! But then poof! he’s up the mountain! Just like that. Alone. & then he’s down the mountain just like that. & she doesn’t have a scratch on her. Or shaken baby syndrome, which were the three words most going through my mind during the three hours devoted to watching this film. (shaken. baby. syndrome.) & then poof! the ape’s on a stage in mid-town Manhattan. Miraculously, on that rinky dink boat, with limited ether or whatever, without anyone knowing how long the ether will last, without anyone in Manhattan seeing a huge primate being scuttled amongst the holiday shoppers. & then Naomi Watts, who weighs about a buck ten soaking wet (in yet another flimsy dress which -surprise!- doesn’t get ripped or soiled in any way —- call me nuts but if I’m kidnapped by King freaking Kong, I’m gonna get soiled in one way or another, folks) is on the spire atop the Empire State Building in windy weather, with this animal jumping up & down … & doesn’t get blown away, doesn’t fall off, doesn’t even look like she’s unsure of her footing at any point. What, does she scale skyscrapers for a living? In lingerie?
Visually stunn ing, yes. Poignant, classic story, yes. A little disappointing? Yes.